Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives

Dee L. R. Graham with Edna I. Rawlings and Roberta K. Rigsby

Published by New York University Press, 1994

Preface

My colleagues and I, as authors of these chapters, make two promises to our readers. Our first promise is that the new way of looking at male-female relationships that we present here will forever change the way you look at women, at men, and at male-female relationships. Our second promise is that the journey on which this book seeks to take you will be emotionally challenging.

Most women who have read sections of the book in manuscript form tell us it was painful for them to read the ideas we present. (Strangely, men have had more positive reactions to the ideas.) However, many of the women who at first respond negatively later become excited about the ideas we propose – after they have had the opportunity to work through their initial shock and resistance. In other words, it is difficult even to consider our ideas, much less accept them.

And here is where we return to our first promise. Significantly altering one’s worldview is a difficult task – one that people fight and one that arouses strong feelings. It is because this book is likely to seriously alter your worldview that we say it will take you on a journey. While we don’t expect everyone to accept all of our arguments, we anticipate that even those who disagree will be deeply impacted by the new perspective we offer them. Our hope is that you will observe male-female interactions in your own life and in the lives of those around you and that the picture we present helps you understand women, men, and their relationships.

And where are we going on this journey? We regard the effects of men’s violence against women as crucial in understanding women’s current psychology. Men’s violence creates ever-present – and therefore often unrecognised – terror in women. For instance, this terror is experienced as a fear, by any woman, of rape by any man or as a fear of making a man – any man – angry. We propose that women’s current psychology is actually a psychology of women under conditions of captivity – that is, under conditions of terror caused by male violence against women. (In fact, the conditions of women are conditions of slavery.) We also propose that no one has any idea what women’s psychology under conditions of safety and freedom would be like. We propose that a psychology of women under conditions of captivity (and slavery) is no more “natural” for or intrinsic to women, in a genetic and biological sense, than a psychology of wild animals in captivity is natural for them.

We set forth the idea that women’s responses to men, and to male violence, resemble hostages’ responses to captors. More specifically, we propose that a construct recognised in hostage-taking events, known as Stockholm Syndrome, wherein hostages and captors mutually bond to one another, can help us understand female psychology and male-female relations.

We propose that women’s bonding to men, as well as women’s femininity and heterosexuality, are paradoxical responses to men’s violence against women. Like captors who need to kill or at least wound a few hostages in order to get what they want, men terrorise women in order to get what they want: women’s continued sexual, emotional, domestic, and reproductive services. Like hostages who work to placate their captors lest those captors kill them, women work to please men, and from this response springs women’s femininity. Femininity describes a set of behaviours that please men (dominants) because they communicate a woman’s acceptance of her subordinate status. Thus, feminine behaviours are survival strategies. Like hostages who bond to their captors, women bond to men in an effort to survive, and this is the source of women’s strong need for connection with men and of women’s love of men. We believe that until men stop terrorising women – even in women’s memories – we cannot know if women’s love of men and women’s heterosexuality are anything other than Stockholm Syndrome survival strategies. We refer to this theory of women’s current psychology as Societal Stockholm Syndrome theory.

While the theory proposed here is emotionally challenging, it can make the world more understandable by exposing the relationships between seemingly disparate phenomena. For example, Societal Stockholm Syndrome theory explains why many women oppose the Equal Rights Amendment, why most women reject the very theory – feminism – which espouses women’s point of view and seeks to increase women’s rights, why women work so hard to connect to men when it would be so much easier to get our needs for connection met by other women, why many women have a “love addiction”, and why women love men in the face of men’s violence against us. Societal Stockholm Syndrome shows that these paradoxical behaviours and beliefs of women are survival strategies in a culture marked by male violence. Thus, unlike theories of female masochism or of codependence, this theory blames male violence against women, not women, for the occurrence of women’s seemingly irrational behaviours.

This book describes what we believe to be a universal law of behaviour, which operates when a person existing under conditions of isolation and inescapable violence perceives some kindness on the part of the captor. The influence of this law usually is outside the awareness of those whose behaviour and emotions it drives. But this book does more than describe women’s current psychology as that of a hostage or captive. It also identifies the conditions that produce that psychology and in a broad sense suggests some strategies women may take to create a new world in which we will be both safe and free.

In developing Societal Stockholm Syndrome theory, I am clearly indebted to previous literatures on “hostage” groups. My intellectual debts also extend back to Freud, who identified and developed psychological explanations for key issues in women’s psychology: femininity, women’s love of men, and heterosexuality. However, Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, as well as current theories of women’s psychology (e.g. codependence or love addiction theory and self-in-relation theory), are incomplete in that they do not fully deal with the cultural context within which female psychology emerges. Only radical feminist theorists have recognised the centrality of men’s violence to women’s lives. This book therefore build upon and extends the ideas of such feminist social critics and theorists as Kathleen Barry, Susan Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, Jean Baker Miller, and Adrienne Rich.

Overview of the Book

In chapter 1 we discuss several hostage-taking events, including the 1973 event that led to the coining of the term “Stockholm Syndrome”, which refers to the bidirectional bonding of hostages and captors. Discussion of several hostage-taking events allows us to begin to assess the extent to which hostages bond with their captors, the conditions conducive to captor-captive bonding, the nature of the bond, and the psychodynamics underlying bonding to a captor/abuser/oppressor.

Chapter 2 describes both Graham’s Stockholm Syndrome theory (and extension of the “classic” Stockholm Syndrome concept presented in chapter 1) and the outgrowth of Graham’s Stockholm Syndrome theory referred to as Societal Stockholm Syndrome theory. Graham’s theory emerged from analysis of nine different “hostage” groups (hostages, concentration camp prisoners, cult members, prisoners of war, civilians in Communist China who were subjected to thought reform, battered women, abused children, victims of father-daughter incest, and prostitutes procured by pimps) in which bonding to an abuser/captor occurred. Graham’s Stockholm Syndrome theory identifies four hypothesised precursors of Stockholm Syndrome (perceived threat to survival, perceived inability to escape, perceived kindness from captor, and isolation) and nine major indicators of the presence of Stockholm Syndrome in victims, and describes the psychodynamics underlying Stockholm Syndrome as they are manifested by members of numerous hostagelike groups. This chapter also explains the process by which victims generalise Stockholm Syndrome psychodynamics to relationships with persons other than their captors. A special case of this process of generalisation is Societal Stockholm Syndrome. It involves the bonding of an oppressed group to an oppressor group, for example, the bonding of women as a group to men as a group.

Chapter 3 takes up the idea that Societal Stockholm Syndrome is present in all oppressor-oppressed group relations. We show how one might assess the relevance of Societal Stockholm Syndrome to any particular set of unequal group-group relations. In particular, we address two questions: whether the four hypothesised precursor conditions for the development of Stockholm Syndrome (perceived threat to survival, perceived inability to escape, isolation, and perceived kindness from captor) are present in male-female relationships, and if so, to what extent.

In chapter 4 Graham’s nine indicators of Stockholm Syndrome are shown to characterise women’s current psychology. Chapter 5 confronts the possibility that women’s femininity, love of men, and heterosexuality are expressions of Societal Stockholm Syndrome. We argue that, as long as the four Stockholm Syndrome-conducive conditions are present in male-female relations and as long as most women are feminine, love men, and are heterosexual, we cannot know if these qualities of women are anything other than Societal Stockholm Syndrome responses.

Chapter 6 asks how women can transform our hostage psychology (Societal Stockholm Syndrome) while still experiencing male violence, ideological and physical isolation from one another, inability to escape, and dependence on small male kindnesses. To develop a world in which relationships are based on mutuality rather than dominance and subordination, we need to be able to imagine such a world. For the captive or slave, imagining is a subversive and revolutionary act. To help us develop new visions and move out of slavery, the chapter draws on four themes from feminist science fiction: empathy and women’s power of connection, language that articulates women’s perspectives, distrusting men/holding them accountable for their violence, and women as warriors/honoring our anger. Four methods of resistance are also described: claiming space, keeping track, looking out for one’s own, and getting savvy. The authors do not present these themes and methods as the answers to transforming our slave psychology; our concern here is with the process (imagining new ideas) apparent in women’s science fiction rather than the actual societies presented in such writing. We emphasise process because we recognise that the particular paths of action chosen by different women will differ and that there is room for many approaches to a shared goal. Our goal is to inspire women to redirect our (women’s) courage and resourcefulness from surviving by loving our captors to thriving by loving ourselves, other women, and those men who will return empowering, healthy love.

Some Comments about Purpose and Style

The reader should realise that the theory presented here is that, a theory. Theory has the following functions: it helps make sense of facts (for example, behaviours) not previously understood by hypothesising certain relationships between those facts; it encourages research designed to test that theory, thereby leading to the generation of new information; and, if accurate, it helps predict future behaviour. Societal Stockholm Syndrome theory is presented for these three reasons and because, if found to be accurate, it has the potential to help women uncover ways of improving our situation. However, because this theory is being presented for the first time and despite the fact that an enormous amount of research in the literature supports it, it is an empirically untested theory. Further, because this research was conducted on predominantly white, college student samples, it is unclear to what extent the findings generalise to other groups. The reader is therefore encouraged to approach the topic with the skepticism and open mind of an objective researcher. The life experiences of each reader will provide tests of this theory. Rather than accepting or rejecting the theory outright, the reader is encouraged to test for herself the utility of Societal Stockholm Syndrome in making sense of her own and other’s [sic] behaviour on the basis of Societal Stockholm Syndrome theory and to see whether those predictions are born [sic] out. If the theory is valid, they will be.

The author breaks with stylistic convention and uses the words “we”, “us”, and “our” as opposed to “they”, “them” and “their” when referring to women as a group. There are numerous reasons for this. All too often women are left to wonder whether writers and speakers intended to include females when so-called generic terms such as “man” and “he” are used. The language used here is employed to help ensure that every reader knows that this book was written to women by women for women about women. It seems grossly unfitting to be a woman writing to women about women’s lives and women’s perspectives and to use words that imply that “women” refers to people other than the intended audience and the author.

Use of the terms “they”, “them” and “their” when referring to women discourages women from thinking of ourselves as members of a group with a unique set of perspectives. While the author realises that within the group women there are many different perspectives and many sub-groups, still, there exist experiences that we all have because we are female. The issues raised by those common experiences are the topic of this book. Use of the terms “we”, “us”, and “our” encourages exactly the sort of group consciousness that is needed to tackle those issues. The more conventional style also prevents us from experiencing ourselves as both the object of focus and the locus of decision-making. In other words, this author believes that use of the terms “we”, “us”, and “our” will encourage women to see ourselves as persons capable of changing the world so as to make it a safer, healthier place for ourselves and one another.

♦

extrait du chapitre 1

Principles of Behaviour for Hostage Survival

To the extent that Stockholm Syndrome is present, those trying to win the release of captives cannot count on the hostages being “truthful” or helpful. Nor can prosecutors count on hostages’ cooperation in a courtroom (Kuleshnyk, 1984).

In spite of these problems created by Stockholm Syndrome, law-enforcement personnel attempt to encourage the captive-captor bond since it is believed to improve the likelihood of the hostages’ survival. In fact, officials who have studied Stockholm Syndrome have suggested rules or principles of hostage behaviour vis-à-vis the captor to improve hostages’ chances of surviving captivity.

Turner’s (1990) recommendations to persons taken hostage include the following

1. Maintain hope and do what you can to ensure that your captor maintains hope. A captor without hope may give up, killing himself or herself and all hostages.

2. Stay calm and encourage the captor to stay calm.

3. Blend in with the other hostages, keeping a low profile.

4. Rest early on so you won’t become short-tempered with your captor, for your captor, who won’t be able to rest, will become increasingly short-tempered as the ordeal continues.

5. Use “extreme caution” in evaluating escape opportunities, for a failed attempt can lead to reprisals against the attempted escapist, while a successful attempt can lead to reprisals against fellow hostages.

Turner is advising hostages to manage both their own affect and the affect of the captor in ways that will improve their chances of surviving.

It is important that hostages not express hostility and antipathy toward their captors, for such behaviours may intensify the captors’ antagonism, relieving their guilt for making them hostages in the first place. Such behaviours also serve to relieve captors of guilt for any harm done to hostages in their efforts to get their demands met (Kuleshnyk, 1984).

McClure (1978, pp.36-37), himself a former hostage, offers the following additional suggestions for hostage survival in kidnap-imprisonment situations: “Perhaps the most important job of the hostages during a protracted imprisonment is to neutralise the hostility of these jailers and then win them over … Anything that will show [the hostages] as individual human beings, rather than symbols of a class or system, should be exploited … [T]hey should take every opportunity to talk to [their captors]. Without any suggestion of Socratic nagging, prisoners should ask questions that draw the guards out about their family, cultural and personal interests, goals, and motivations. Where there are natural parallels in the hostages’ own background, these should be noted. The unspoken message of the hostage’s attitude should be this: I take you seriously and know you are capable of doing anything you say you’ll do, or threaten to do. But I also know you are a decent, fair-minded person, and I want us to get to know each other better.”

But McClure repeatedly warns that, while showing proper respect for the captor’s power and humanity, “the answer for the hostages is not to be completely passive and compliant toward the captor; this can be almost as serious an error in come cases as being too belligerent” (p.42). If the hostages appear fawning, obsequious, and sycophantic to their captors, they will only draw contempt. The prisoner is exhorted to walk a fine line with respect to his or her relationship with the captor, neither encouraging the captor’s hostility nor fulfilling captor’s stereotype of the hostage by being obviously submissive for the sake of survival.

Further, McClure warns that hostages must control the extent of their identification with the captor, walking another fine line: “The problem with spontaneous identification under stress is that the hostages lose their sense of proportion and can become satellites of the person who threatens their life” (p.43). Once a satellite, the hostage can easily behave in self-defeating ways, such as warning a captor that the police can see and shoot him, when the police’s fire could win the hostage’s release.

Like Kuleshnyk, McClure warns against the development of negative transference, or “the development of antipathy and even aggressive hostility by the hostages toward their captors”, noting that “the result has always meant hardship for the hostage” (McClure, 1978, p.42). The reasons are that “such hostility liberates the captors from any guilt they might have felt in seizing the victim … [i]t justifies and intensifies any feeling of hate which the captors may attach to the hostage, … [and] [i]t may also wound the ego of a basically insecure captor, prompting direct retaliation” (p.42).

Stockholm Syndrome in captors can be fostered during negotiations by, for example, asking them to check on the health of captives or discussing captives’ family responsibilities with them. Any action by negotiators which encourages captors to see captives as humans promotes the syndrome in abductors, unless the captors are sociopaths (Strentz, 1982). Also, any action that encourages captors and hostages to work together, for example, to prepare food, distribute blankets, and so on, nourishes the syndrome in captors (E.E. Flynn, 1990).

In anticipation of our later application of Stockholm Syndrome to women’s psychology, we suggest that the reader reflect on parallels between principles for hostage survival and lessons on femininity, which women are taught about how to get along with men.